Oh, I get it. Let's pretend that the Benghazi hearings are anything more than a witch hunt and that HRC needs a pardon from that. Let's pretend that the email "scandal" is still boiling and she's gonna get hers soon. Let's pretend that there's some big smoking gun of quid pro quo that she changed gov't policy in order to grow her charitable foundation. And let's pretend she needs to beg for or hope for some kind of pardon from Obama before meanie Donald puts her in jail. Right. Live in your alternative universe. Look at the level of what Gen Patreaus did. THAT is a scandal. That is very illegal. He purposefully and knowingly provided classified and confidential documents to a mistress outside of the government. And for that, he rec'd a slap on the wrist and a gov't job. You think Hillary is going to jail? fat chance. Get real. Your hate for her will not translate into criminal charges.

1) ITS NOT PRETEND2) LEARN HOW TO READ. A PARDON MEANS NO CRIMINAL CHARGES3) YOUR BLIND DEVOTION TO ALL THINGS PROGRESSIVE DOESN'T MAKE HER INNOCENT4) YOUR HOLIER THAN THOU ARROGANCE DOES NOT MEAN 95% OF THE NATION AGREES WITH YOU LIKE YOU LIKE TO PRETEND5) A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE POPULATION THINKS SHES DOES BELONG IN JAIL. AT LEAST 10X THE SIZE OF THE GAY POPULATION. MAYBE BE AS HIGH AS 25X6) NOBODY PROJECTS AN ALTERNATIVE UNIVERSE BETTER THAN YOUR LYING ASS

Deplorable Mark wrote:1) ITS NOT PRETEND2) LEARN HOW TO READ. A PARDON MEANS NO CRIMINAL CHARGES3) YOUR BLIND DEVOTION TO ALL THINGS PROGRESSIVE DOESN'T MAKE HER INNOCENT4) YOUR HOLIER THAN THOU ARROGANCE DOES NOT MEAN 95% OF THE NATION AGREES WITH YOU LIKE YOU LIKE TO PRETEND5) A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE POPULATION THINKS SHES DOES BELONG IN JAIL. AT LEAST 10X THE SIZE OF THE GAY POPULATION. MAYBE BE AS HIGH AS 25X6) NOBODY PROJECTS AN ALTERNATIVE UNIVERSE BETTER THAN YOUR LYING ASS

It doesn't matter if 100% of the nation thinks she needs to be executed. She isn't going to jail unless there is clear evidence of wrongdoing that's criminal enough to warrant prison. I'm pretty sure she's confident that no such evidence exists, and would in turn refuse any offer of pardon, noting that she's done nothing wrong and to investigate all you want. This has nothing to do with devotion to things progressive. You heard Comey in July. He said there's "nothing even close" to warranting charges or indictment. This guy is a republican that's surrounded by people that absolutely hate or can't stand Clinton. You can keep on hoping and predicting jail for her. Good luck with that.

I'm pretty sure she's confident that no such evidence exists, and would in turn refuse any offer of pardon, noting that she's done nothing wrong and to investigate all you want.

*********************************************************

THIS HAS TO BE THE DUMBEST THING I'VE YET IN A LONG TIME.

SO IN ROBZ'S FUCKED UP WORLD, A COMPLETELY INNOCENT HILLARY WOULD REFUSE A PARDON, WHICH WOULD FOREVER REMOVE THE POSSIBILITY BEING BOTHERED WITH INVESTIGATION EVER AGAIN, BECAUSE SHE'D RATHER UNDERGO CONSTANT INVESTIGATION BECAUSE SHE IS CONFIDENT THAT THE MISTAKES SHE HAS ADMITTED TO DO NOT CROSS THE LINE OF LEGALITY

YES, THAT IS PURE BRILLANCE. AND WE ALL KNOW HILLARY HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO HIDE BECAUSE SHE DOESN'T HAVE AN UNETHICAL BONE IN HER BONE

Deplorable Mark wrote:ROBZ ABILITY TO CONTRADICT HIMSELF WITHIN A FEW POSTS JUST TO DELIBERATELY DISAGREE WITH THE KARK IS SIMPLY AMAZING.

I guess if you think it's contradictory. It must be. I just don't think she'd accept a pardon, nor do I think she needs one. If you think that's contradictory, so be it. Dumb of me to think you could actually get through a topic without taking your usual low road. I'll let you get back to the name calling and swearing now...

Deplorable Mark wrote:ROBZ ABILITY TO CONTRADICT HIMSELF WITHIN A FEW POSTS JUST TO DELIBERATELY DISAGREE WITH THE KARK IS SIMPLY AMAZING.

I guess if you think it's contradictory. It must be. I just don't think she'd accept a pardon, nor do I think she needs one. If you think that's contradictory, so be it. Dumb of me to think you could actually get through a topic without taking your usual low road. I'll let you get back to the name calling and swearing now...

THE HIGH ROAD DOESN'T WORK WITH YOU

AND IF ANYBODY DESERVES TO FUCK OFF ITS YOUR ARROGANT LYING ASS

LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT IT WAS THE KARK THAT CLAIM IT WAS A GOOD IDEA FOR TRUMP TO OFFER CLINTON AN OLIVE BRANCH AND ROBZ THAT TOOK A GIANT CRAP ON THAT IDEA

Deplorable Mark wrote:Your stance is reasonable, practical and very fair.

**************************************

ROGER GETS ISROBZ GETS OFF BEING A CONTRARIAN AND NEVER LETS GONOW LETS WATCH AS THE SCHMUCK LIE ABOUT HOW THE KARK WANTS HILLARY IN JAIL JUST SO TRUMP CAN LET HER OUT OF JAILMAYBE WE CAN GET ANOTHER IMAGINERY THEORY REGARDING THE LAST ICE AGE AS A BONUS

How about I'll just sit back and watch and wait for this pardon, or for her indictment?

Deplorable Mark wrote:ROBZ ABILITY TO CONTRADICT HIMSELF WITHIN A FEW POSTS JUST TO DELIBERATELY DISAGREE WITH THE KARK IS SIMPLY AMAZING.

I guess if you think it's contradictory. It must be. I just don't think she'd accept a pardon, nor do I think she needs one. If you think that's contradictory, so be it. Dumb of me to think you could actually get through a topic without taking your usual low road. I'll let you get back to the name calling and swearing now...

THE HIGH ROAD DOESN'T WORK WITH YOU

AND IF ANYBODY DESERVES TO FUCK OFF ITS YOUR ARROGANT LYING ASS

LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT IT WAS THE KARK THAT CLAIM IT WAS A GOOD IDEA FOR TRUMP TO OFFER CLINTON AN OLIVE BRANCH AND ROBZ THAT TOOK A GIANT CRAP ON THAT IDEA

So I guess your letter to Tim was bullshit, huh. Because everybody didn't ooh and aah at your suggestion, we must all be assholes, right? We turned our back on your attempt to be magnanimous. Can't imagine what you would be saying if your hero lost

Deplorable Mark wrote:ROBZ ABILITY TO CONTRADICT HIMSELF WITHIN A FEW POSTS JUST TO DELIBERATELY DISAGREE WITH THE KARK IS SIMPLY AMAZING.

I guess if you think it's contradictory. It must be. I just don't think she'd accept a pardon, nor do I think she needs one. If you think that's contradictory, so be it. Dumb of me to think you could actually get through a topic without taking your usual low road. I'll let you get back to the name calling and swearing now...

Of course HRC accepts a pardon. Are you kidding ? She would want to go through another 6-12 months of grueling investigation and potentially a lengthy trial process ? I think Obama can make the case that he's convinced HRC is innocent and any trial would find the same. But rather than having the nation waste its time and stir up further further rancor/trauma from all this he's giving the nation a chance to move on.Democrats would appreciate that, Republicans would be pissed but they already hate Obama as is. As noted, I think he does Trump a favor because this way Trump doesn't have to face the wrath of the right wing for "selling out". Trump can publicly protest the pardon which he and Obama have made a backroom deal about. Everybody wins this way. And Obama has at least has kept an open pipeline of communication in the future with the Donald.

BUT IF SHE AGREES TO JUST GO AWAY, PEOPLE WILL FORGET ABOUT HER SOME ENOUGH.

FINALLY, TRUMP SURVIVED LEFTWING CRUCIFIXATION, I'M SURE HE CAN SURVIVE IT FROM THE RIGHT. PART OF HIS CHARM IS HIS "F" THE MEDIA ATTITUDE

******************PS, I DON'T WANT CONGRESS PLAYING THE BAD GUY EITHER. WHAT IS THE POINT OF TRUMP HOLDING OUT AN OLIVE BRANCH JUST TO HAVE PAUL RYAN SNAP IT IN TWO.TIME TO START THE HEALING. I WOULD THINK ALLOWING HILLARY TO WALK OFF INTO THE SUNSET WOULD BE A NICE SYMBOLIC GESTURETHANK YOU ROGER FOR UNDERSTANDING THAT WAS MY POINT

Possible Trump wants to make the gesture. But he also may want to preserve his political capital with the right wing of the party for other things. In the end, if I'm Trump I see Clinton as too insignificant to stick any part of my neck out for. Remember when Ford pardoned Nixon. He took heat for it and it may have even cost him the 1976 election. Obama doesn't have to run in any more elections, Trump does.

rmapasad wrote:Possible Trump wants to make the gesture. But he also may want to preserve his political capital with the right wing of the party for other things. In the end, if I'm Trump I see Clinton as too insignificant to stick any part of my neck out for. Remember when Ford pardoned Nixon. He took heat for it and it may have even cost him the 1976 election. Obama doesn't have to run in any more elections, Trump does.

That's the key point. And to what ends do they keep investigating her? They're not going to end up jailing her. They know that. She knows that. She doesn't need a pardon because the investigation is going nowhere and is essentially done already. If she knows she's done nothing wrong, might she let them overreach and keep on investigating her? It's not as if it requires much of her time. My belief is all of this talk about jailing or investigating Hillary is the same as all of his banter about banning Muslims, and building a wall and making Mexico pay for it. It's all bullshit. If some new shitstorm of new evidence turns up on Hillary, maybe they reopen it, but again, to what ends? Is she going to be jailed? No.

Shooters Buffet wrote:She is irrelevant now. Any indictment would be a waste of time and money.

Time to move on!!

Correct. And she knows it. Everyone that matters knows it. There's nothing to gain and the election is over. These investigations were for the purpose of curtailing her election chances, except for the email FBI investigation, which was started due to the Benghazi investigation, which was most certainly for the purpose of curtailing her chances of winning. Just ask Kevin McCarthy.

Hawk Harrelson wrote:People do not like her.E-Mails, Benghazi.....these were not deal breakers with voters.She is detested.Her sleaze factor played into this.People wanted change in both parties.

Benghazi and emails did her in and here's why, IMO. She was never loved, and her issues never inspired anyone. But she did have an image of being competent and decent for a while. But that was a weak image to build on. While she left Secty of State job with 60 percent favorability rating, Benghazi hearings quickly took it down below 50 percent and after the email stuff broke it plunged into the low 40's. Sanders further solidified her negatives about Wall St ties and she went to mid 30's.

Emails gave Republicans a real "gotcha" to prove she was not only corrupt but incompetent. But thanks to Trump behaving like Bozo the Clown for most of the campaign and her being more Presidential in the debates, she recovered her image of competency and even decency a bit.What her incompetent campaign managers didn't realize was how fragile her support was among swing voters in the Rust Belt. Bill Clinton tried to warn them but no one listened to him. They were too busy popping champagne corks over Access Hollywood, women coming forward and Michelle Obama going on tour. They banked everything on minorities, women and the young and "they go low, we go high."

But "going high" didn't mean talking about pocketbook issues (like Bill wanted) it meant endless replays of Trump quotes about women. So when Comey letter came out, it took all the air out of Clinton's decency arguments. Not only did it bring back Hilliary's sleaze, it dealt a blow to her competency argument. How could she be emailing someone who was using Anthony Wiener's computer? Her weak, wobbly response just intensified the damage.

So yes, it's very believable that Comey might have cost Clinton the election. But that wasn't Comey's fault, it was Clinton's for having all her eggs in the competency/character basket. Not many swing voters thought Trump was any less sleazy but he offered a familiar theme to Rust Belt voters that also worked for a guy 8 years earlier- change and at least some hope.

As soon as Obama was nominated to run for president by the Democrats in 2008, it was well decided that HRC was going to be their candidate in 2016 come hell or high water. They stopped listening to their constituency and didn't give Sanders a second thought other than his being annoying for not following party lines. Of the democrats on this board, who in 2008 or 2012 didn't think that HRC was going to be their candidate in 2016? And now there are people already picking out who they'd like to see run in 2020. Who the fuck knows what the issues are going to be the issues then? The Korean peninsula could be a nuclear wasteland by then. Germany could be coming a world power again by then. How can people be picking their hopeful candidate today for 2020? Unfuckingbelievable. The dems are as responsible for the buffoon in office as anybody. A week or go I stated the repubs had to be kicking themselves in the nuts for not being able to find anyone who could beat HRC. Looks like I picked on the wrong party.

jaywit wrote:As soon as Obama was nominated to run for president by the Democrats in 2008, it was well decided that HRC was going to be their candidate in 2016 come hell or high water. They stopped listening to their constituency and didn't give Sanders a second thought other than his being annoying for not following party lines. Of the democrats on this board, who in 2008 or 2012 didn't think that HRC was going to be their candidate in 2016? And now there are people already picking out who they'd like to see run in 2020. Who the fuck knows what the issues are going to be the issues then? The Korean peninsula could be a nuclear wasteland by then. Germany could be coming a world power again by then. How can people be picking their hopeful candidate today for 2020? Unfuckingbelievable. The dems are as responsible for the buffoon in office as anybody. A week or go I stated the repubs had to be kicking themselves in the nuts for not being able to find anyone who could beat HRC. Looks like I picked on the wrong party.

Quite honestly, HRC represented the best hope for centrist policies.. Now we are back on the see-saw where a new Administration takes the country either too far left (like Obama did his first two years) or too far right (like Bush did)... We will see all sorts of foolishness driven by right wing ideology in this new Administration with maybe some faint hope that business gets better and Banks lend more money. But this will be a shit-pot of controversy, hate, etc. for the next four years because extremism will be in control again..HRC would have had her own problems had she won. Not because of her policies, but her piss-poor abilities to manage. Allowing herself to use this email server while at State, giving bunglers like Mills, Podesta, Abedin and Brazelle too much power and just running a poor campaign shows that her Administration would have had its own nightmares. What is completely depressing is that now the Dems feel they have to turn to the Sanders/Warren left as a foil against the Trump/Ryan right and common sense solutions to how to run this country are virtually nowhere to be found.

jaywit wrote:As soon as Obama was nominated to run for president by the Democrats in 2008, it was well decided that HRC was going to be their candidate in 2016 come hell or high water. They stopped listening to their constituency and didn't give Sanders a second thought other than his being annoying for not following party lines. Of the democrats on this board, who in 2008 or 2012 didn't think that HRC was going to be their candidate in 2016? And now there are people already picking out who they'd like to see run in 2020. Who the fuck knows what the issues are going to be the issues then? The Korean peninsula could be a nuclear wasteland by then. Germany could be coming a world power again by then. How can people be picking their hopeful candidate today for 2020? Unfuckingbelievable. The dems are as responsible for the buffoon in office as anybody. A week or go I stated the repubs had to be kicking themselves in the nuts for not being able to find anyone who could beat HRC. Looks like I picked on the wrong party.

Quite honestly, HRC represented the best hope for centrist policies.. Now we are back on the see-saw where a new Administration takes the country either too far left (like Obama did his first two years) or too far right (like Bush did)... We will see all sorts of foolishness driven by right wing ideology in this new Administration with maybe some faint hope that business gets better and Banks lend more money. But this will be a shit-pot of controversy, hate, etc. for the next four years because extremism will be in control again..HRC would have had her own problems had she won. Not because of her policies, but her piss-poor abilities to manage. Allowing herself to use this email server while at State, giving bunglers like Mills, Podesta, Abedin and Brazelle too much power and just running a poor campaign shows that her Administration would have had its own nightmares. What is completely depressing is that now the Dems feel they have to turn to the Sanders/Warren left as a foil against the Trump/Ryan right and common sense solutions to how to run this country are virtually nowhere to be found.

Along those lines, I have read a lot of "we are going to do to you exactly what you did to us" from Democrats (some from actual politicians, some from just unhappy Democratic voters). To this I ask (stolen from Zig Ziglar), "how are you going to get ahead when all you are trying to do is get even?"

BUT IF SHE AGREES TO JUST GO AWAY, PEOPLE WILL FORGET ABOUT HER SOME ENOUGH.

FINALLY, TRUMP SURVIVED LEFTWING CRUCIFIXATION, I'M SURE HE CAN SURVIVE IT FROM THE RIGHT. PART OF HIS CHARM IS HIS "F" THE MEDIA ATTITUDE

******************PS, I DON'T WANT CONGRESS PLAYING THE BAD GUY EITHER. WHAT IS THE POINT OF TRUMP HOLDING OUT AN OLIVE BRANCH JUST TO HAVE PAUL RYAN SNAP IT IN TWO.TIME TO START THE HEALING. I WOULD THINK ALLOWING HILLARY TO WALK OFF INTO THE SUNSET WOULD BE A NICE SYMBOLIC GESTURETHANK YOU ROGER FOR UNDERSTANDING THAT WAS MY POINT

Possible Trump wants to make the gesture. But he also may want to preserve his political capital with the right wing of the party for other things. In the end, if I'm Trump I see Clinton as too insignificant to stick any part of my neck out for. Remember when Ford pardoned Nixon. He took heat for it and it may have even cost him the 1976 election. Obama doesn't have to run in any more elections, Trump does.

WAS NIXON ANY UNDER CHARGES WHEN PARDONED?!?!?!?

ALWAYS BEEN MY THOUGHT THAT FORD DID THE PARDON SO NIXON CAN DISAPPEAR INTO THE SUNSET.

I THINK MOST OF US HER AGREE THAT IT WOULD BE BEST FOR HILLARY TO WALK OFF INTO THE SUNSET AND BE FORGOTTEN

THAT'S IS WHAT I WAS GETTING AT WITH A TRUMP PARDON.

ROGER, YOU SEEMED TO GET THAT.

BUT THEN SOMEONE HERE, WHO GETS OFF DISAGREEING JUST TO BE DISAGREEABLE, STARTED SOME RIDICULOUS ARGUMENT WHICH BOILS DOWN TO A SILLY SEMANTIC ARGUMENT OVER WHAT DOES PARDON MEAN.

PS, I PREFER TRUMP OVER OBAMA. WITH TRUMP, IT LOOKS LIKE AN OLIVE BRANCH. WITH OBAMA, IT LOOKS LIKE CIRCLING THE WAGONS. PLUS TRUMP NEEDS TO SHOW HE CAN STAND UP AGAINST THE RIGHTWING MEDIA AS MUCH AS THE LEFTWING MEDIA. LET'S WORRY ABOUT RIGHT AND WRONG. NOT THE OPTICS

As soon as Obama was nominated to run for president by the Democrats in 2008, it was well decided that HRC was going to be their candidate in 2016 come hell or high water. They stopped listening to their constituency and didn't give Sanders a second thought other than his being annoying for not following party lines. Of the democrats on this board, who in 2008 or 2012 didn't think that HRC was going to be their candidate in 2016? And now there are people already picking out who they'd like to see run in 2020. Who the fuck knows what the issues are going to be the issues then? The Korean peninsula could be a nuclear wasteland by then. Germany could be coming a world power again by then. How can people be picking their hopeful candidate today for 2020? Unfuckingbelievable. The dems are as responsible for the buffoon in office as anybody. A week or go I stated the repubs had to be kicking themselves in the nuts for not being able to find anyone who could beat HRC. Looks like I picked on the wrong party.